I started discussing it in depth (but there was other criticism even before by late firecracker and granpachum) in 2008 (sided successively by d&d): wtf you were in the meantime?

Saigon.

I remember trying to read this thread a couple of times so far, and I always can't get past the 10th-something page. The problem is: I never cared for this movie much, I don't see this has enough substance for long and elaborate discussions anyway.

I watched it once as a kid, and saw it maybe a dozen times again on TV, but mostly in 15-20 min pieces, never caring to sit through it in one session. Until now, and my opinion did not change. I lost track maybe 5 times of the so-called character development - what do they develop into anyway? They don't develop into anything really, in the end we have to take 'em for what they are - ''men who live by their own code of violence''. So what's so subtle and deep about that, or philosophical? I could not detect. You don't have to ride us for 2.5 hours to tell us that that's just what they are, and that we have to put all logic aside only to come back to the starting point. I mean, I can understand that, but that's far from being philosophical or deep on any level.

The movie is visually remarkable and the action scenes are great, although the movie as a whole suffers from the recurring Peckinpah gimmicks (making some of the characters suffer to the point of becoming buffoonish). As a game-changer, this movie also lacks the sparks of life of many SW/ZW, and some AW before, not to mention the best ones. It's a good ride though, it just isn't great. 7 - 7.5/10

« : February 11, 2017, 11:15:13 AM Dust Devil »

No matter how cleverly you sneak up on a mirror, the reflection always looks you straight in the eye.

The problem is: I never cared for this movie much, I don't see this has enough substance for long and elaborate discussions anyway.

Me too.

Quote

I lost track maybe 5 times of the so-called character development - what do they develop into anyway? They don't develop into anything really, in the end we have to take 'em for what they are - ''men who live by their own code of violence''. So what's so subtle and deep about that, or philosophical? I could not detect. You don't have to ride us for 2.5 hours to tell us that that's just what they are, and that we have to put all logic aside only to come back to the starting point. I mean, I can understand that, but that's far from being philosophical or deep on any level.

I agree there's no character development but there surely is character change: sudden and totally irrational, not justified by the previous action and words. The point I'm trying to make is all there. And I added that the justification lies in the necessity (by the producer, the director or the writers) to make palatable the characters to the largest slice of the audience: the usual hollywooden gimmick..

Me too. I agree there's no character development but there surely is character change: sudden and totally irrational, not justified by the previous action and words. The point I'm trying to make is all there.

But what I am remarking is that the fact that no explanations for (irrational) behaviour is given it is just a good excuse for letting the movie have the redeeming turn of plot and make the supposedly "Wild" Bunch a happy gang of choirboys. Which is what Hollywood customarily does. The irrationality works always one way, never the other, except in more adult approaches.

Well, thank God, after more than 20 pages you're finally admitting as much.

Only that this irrationality is in concordance with the film, works for the film. And the explanations are there, only not in explaining dialogues. Your view of TWB is one with which you don't understand the film, my is one with which the film is an amazing adventure. If there is more tahn one way to understand a film, this film, I'm the winner anyway.

Quote

And what if he hadn't been wounded at all? I don't understand the connection, sorry.

What's not to understand? In both cases (TWB, OUTW) you would have a different film, or not a film at all.If he did not get wounded the film would have been the same.

Btw, just another indication the the "Rising" scene was not really intended to be there. If Leone wanted the audience to know immediately that Harmonica has survived, he could just let him win the shoot-out as in every other Leone shoot-out.

Quote

That doesn't mean it has to eschew logic.

Not necessarily, yes, but you construct problems where this is not necessary.

Quote

Well, then you'll have to admit that Shoeshine Redemption or ET are art as well. Well, I don't.

You needed to restore forces? Or meditate on my notes? Or watch again the movie?

Quote

Only that this irrationality is in concordance with the film, works for the film. And the explanations are there, only not in explaining dialogues. Your view of TWB is one with which you don't understand the film, my is one with which the film is an amazing adventure. If there is more tahn one way to understand a film, this film, I'm the winner anyway.

Sure, the explanations are all in the mind of the observer, not in the movie. What I said. And you win whatever there is to: I'll pin a medal on you first chance.

Quote

What's not to understand? In both cases (TWB, OUTW) you would have a different film, or not a film at all.

If he did not get wounded the film would have been the same.

Btw, just another indication the the "Rising" scene was not really intended to be there. If Leone wanted the audience to know immediately that Harmonica has survived, he could just let him win the shoot-out as in every other Leone shoot-out.[/quote]

The fact that Bronson gets wounded adds realism to the scene, so it makes perfectly sense: even the best shootist against three other professional runs the risk of being wounded. Leone saw the danger of irrealism and acted consequently. The rising from the dead is the usual elucubration of people with nothing to do.

The fact that Bronson gets wounded adds realism to the scene, so it makes perfectly sense: even the best shootist against three other professional runs the risk of being wounded. Leone saw the danger of irrealism and acted consequently.

Technical achievement: it single-handedly created a new way to shoot and edit action sequences. Its huge influence can still be seen nowadays in almost every action sequence ever. The parallele editing used in other kinds of sequences is also groundbreaking. Needless to say, influence is kind of an objective quality: you may like or dislike a movie, when it determines how the next 50 years of moviemaking are going to be, your own opinion doesn't matter anymore.

Character development: the decision of the bunch to sacrifice themselve obviously talk to most moviegoers all around the world. Of course, all the other themes of the movie (end of an era, end of the western, friendship and betrayal, ideals vs cynicism...) and the way they are developed are striking for many people. We can discuss it for hours, it just works in a very powerful way for me.

Violence: yeah I know, it's been widely discussed and is kind of cliché to defend some movies with this, but the use of violence and the way to show it here made film history. When even the slightest part of your movie makes film history, that's a huge WIN in my book. Hell, I'll probably rewatch even The Lady From Shanghai several times just because of the mirrors scene.

Ernest Borgnine:

Like I always say, the script is far from perfect, I lose interest from time to time in the middle hour, the cinematography isn't half as "finished" as it should be most of the time... but the movie is incredibly powerful as a whole, and I constantly think about its opening sequence (credits + shootout) when I'm in front of my editing software... and I'm far from the only one.

Lots of reasons. "Because Sam was a good friend"; "Because some friend of mine was crying after watching it"; "Because if you can't see it I can't explain it"; "Because titoli stinks"; "Because it took Dave Jenkins 40 years to learn how to eat spaghetti"; "Because cigar joe sees the world (and, what it's worse, the movies) through noir eyes"; "Because Groggy, The Firecracker and Banjo are dead" etc.

Technical achievement: it single-handedly created a new way to shoot and edit action sequences. Its huge influence can still be seen nowadays in almost every action sequence ever. The parallele editing used in other kinds of sequences is also groundbreaking. Needless to say, influence is kind of an objective quality: you may like or dislike a movie, when it determines how the next 50 years of moviemaking are going to be, your own opinion doesn't matter anymore.

Character development: the decision of the bunch to sacrifice themselve obviously talk to most moviegoers all around the world. Of course, all the other themes of the movie (end of an era, end of the western, friendship and betrayal, ideals vs cynicism...) and the way they are developed are striking for many people. We can discuss it for hours, it just works in a very powerful way for me.

Violence: yeah I know, it's been widely discussed and is kind of cliché to defend some movies with this, but the use of violence and the way to show it here made film history. When even the slightest part of your movie makes film history, that's a huge WIN in my book. Hell, I'll probably rewatch even The Lady From Shanghai several times just because of the mirrors scene.

Ernest Borgnine:

Like I always say, the script is far from perfect, I lose interest from time to time in the middle hour, the cinematography isn't half as "finished" as it should be most of the time... but the movie is incredibly powerful as a whole, and I constantly think about its opening sequence (credits + shootout) when I'm in front of my editing software... and I'm far from the only one.

1) OK, I'll buy that for a $.2) Sorry, that is illogical doesn't bother me as such, but it is pretty simple and often times childish.3) Maybe I could buy that for another buck if #2 was worth anything, and it isn't to me.4) I like EB for other reasons: he's a legend, in form and substance, and an actor that today could never become a recognizable movie star (maybe on television) - there's no market for individualism anymore. BUT, when he's miscast he surely won't make the screen explode. Here he's 50:50.

SL's and other movies that I consider great do not make me lose interest when I watch them, that's the difference. I may not be in the mood to watch them on a particular day, but they do not bore me.

« : February 16, 2017, 05:58:52 AM Dust Devil »

No matter how cleverly you sneak up on a mirror, the reflection always looks you straight in the eye.

Lots of reasons. "Because Sam was a good friend"; "Because some friend of mine was crying after watching it"; "Because if you can't see it I can't explain it"; "Because titoli stinks"; "Because it took Dave Jenkins 40 years to learn how to eat spaghetti"; "Because cigar joe sees the world (and, what it's worse, the movies) through noir eyes"; "Because Groggy, The Firecracker and Banjo are dead" etc.

There was something about Scarface, sex, and a girlfriend too, don't know if it was connected with the movie.

No matter how cleverly you sneak up on a mirror, the reflection always looks you straight in the eye.

SL's and other movies that I consider great do not make me lose interest when I watch them, that's the difference. I may not be in the mood to watch them on a particular day, but they do not bore me.

I never lose interest while watching any Peckinpah film, and certainly not in TWB, which instead would lose some of its impact with every scene gone from the current version. And does not work any more in the 126 min version, which was released in Germany.

And Borgnine is certainly not miscast in the best film he ever appeared in. First time ever that I read such a thing.

And the character development is surely not illogical, otherwise the film would have a major problem, and then TWB would never have become the classic film it is.

I find it fascinating how you never stop trying to explain emotions to people who obviously have no feelings at all regarding the mindset of neither Peckinpah nor the characters in his work .Thank heavens we are in good company.Discussing opposite sides of it surely often is interesting and some way of passing the time,but I find it more and more rewarding to talk to people who really get it.